Intentionality Intentionality is a philosophical concept defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs".[1] The term refers to the ability of the mind to form representations and has nothing to do with intention. The term dates from medieval Scholastic philosophy, but was resurrected by Franz Brentano and adopted by Edmund Husserl. The earliest theory of intentionality is associated with St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God and his tenets distinguishing between objects that exist in the understanding and objects that exist in reality.[2] Intentionality should not be confused with intensionality, a related concept from logic and semantics. Modern overview[edit] The concept of intentionality was reintroduced in 19th-century contemporary philosophy by the philosopher and psychologist Franz Brentano in his work Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (1874). See also[edit]
Cosmovisión Cosmovisión o "visión del mundo" o en la forma original alemana Weltanschauung (AFI: [vɛlt.ʔan ʃaʊ.ʊŋ]); es una imagen o figura general de la existencia, realidad o "mundo" que una persona, sociedad o cultura se forman en una época determinada; y suele estar compuesta por determinadas percepciones, conceptuaciones y valoraciones sobre dicho entorno. A partir de las cosmovisiones, los agentes cognitivos (sean esas personas o sociedades) interpretan su propia naturaleza y la de todo lo existente, y definen las nociones comunes que aplican a los diversos campos de la vida, desde la política, la economía o la ciencia hasta la religión, la moral o la filosofía. Definición[editar] Una cosmovisión es el conjunto de opiniones y creencias que conforman la imagen o concepto general del mundo que tiene una persona, época o cultura, a partir de la cual la interpreta su propia naturaleza y la de todo lo existente. Principales tipos de Weltanschauungen según Wilhelm Dilthey[editar] Véase también[editar]
Chinese room The Chinese room is a thought experiment presented by John Searle to challenge the claim that it is possible for a digital computer running a program to have a "mind" and "consciousness" in the same sense that people do, simply by virtue of running the right program. According to Searle, when referring to a hypothetical computer program which can be told a story then answer questions about it: Partisans of strong AI claim that in this question and answer sequence the machine is not only simulating a human ability but also (1) that the machine can literally be said to understand the story and provide the answers to questions, and (2) that what the machine and its program do explains the human ability to understand the story and answer questions about it. To contest this view, Searle writes in his first description of the argument: "Suppose that I'm locked in a room and ... that I know no Chinese, either written or spoken". Chinese room thought experiment[edit] More general context[edit]
Weltanschauung, Vision du monde Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Weltanschauung [vɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] est un terme allemand désignant la conception du monde de chacun selon sa sensibilité particulière. Il associe Welt ('monde') et Anschauung ('vision, opinion, représentation'). La Weltanschauung est au départ une vision du monde d'un point de vue métaphysique, notamment dans l'Allemagne romantique ou moderne. Il s'agit initialement d'une conception du monde datant du Moyen Âge: — Robertson Davies Le monde des merveilles [réf. nécessaire] Hors du champ de la philosophie, la notion de Weltanschauung est aujourd'hui souvent rendue par le terme moderne de paradigme, dont elle constitue l'un des sens. Modernité du concept de Weltanschauung[modifier | modifier le code] Citations[modifier | modifier le code] Carl Gustav Jung évoque la notion de Conception du monde dans ses écrits : « Toute conscience supérieure appelle une Weltanschauung (une conception du monde). « 5. Notes et références[modifier | modifier le code]
The Quantum Mystics Posted by John F. McGowan, Ph.D. in Applied Math, History, Math Education on October 3rd, 2010 | 6 responses The 2004 movie/documentary What the Bleep Do We Know? has a simple answer to life’s problems: Quantum Mechanics! What the Bleep Do We Know? Like most popular science, the movie makes very limited use of mathematics: rendering the movie title in mathematical symbols on the DVD case and web site and a brief sequence of computer generated flying equations that are never explained. What is Quantum Mechanics Actually? The textbook theory of non-relativistic quantum mechanics is actually quite simple. The basic quantum mechanics formulated by Niels Bohr, Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, and their colleagues over the objections of Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger, and Prince Louis deBroglie asserts that sub-atomic particles (and presumably macroscopic objects like tables and chairs) are characterized by a quantum state or quantum wave function usually represented by the Greek letter . .
English Is an Overwhelmingly Positive Language - Hans Villarica University of Vermont mathematicians analyze billions of words in literature, music, and even Twitter, and find that happiness is a constant. PROBLEM: Last month, University of Vermont researchers led by mathematician Peter Dodds proclaimed that average global happiness had been dropping for the past two years after studying billions of tweets worldwide. METHODOLOGY: To verify their findings and check if English is inherently positive or negative, the scientists analyzed billions of words from Twitter, a half-century of music lyrics, 20 years of The New York Times, and millions of books going back to 1520. After finding the 10,222 most frequently used English words from these four sources, they asked a group of volunteers to rate the emotional temperature of these words. A positive word like "laughter" was given an 8.5 score, for instance, while a negative word like "terrorist" was given a 1.3 rating. CONCLUSION: English is strongly biased toward being positive.
Consensus reality Consensus reality[1][2] is that which is generally agreed to be reality, based on a consensus view. The difficulty with the question stems from the concern that human beings do not in fact fully understand or agree upon the nature of knowledge or ontology, and therefore it is not possible to be certain beyond doubt what is real.[3][4] Accordingly, this line of logic concludes, we cannot in fact be sure beyond doubt about the nature of reality. We can, however, seek to obtain some form of consensus, with others, of what is real. Throughout history this has also raised a social question: "What shall we make of those who do not agree with consensus realities of others, or of the society they live in?" General discussion[edit] Consensus reality may be understood by studying socially constructed reality, a subject within the sociology of knowledge. However, realities may also differ amongst a population of those who believe in the same "particular God". Objectivists[edit] Idealists[edit]
Neil Gaiman: Why our future depends on libraries, reading and daydreaming It’s important for people to tell you what side they are on and why, and whether they might be biased. A declaration of members’ interests, of a sort. So, I am going to be talking to you about reading. I’m going to tell you that libraries are important. And I am biased, obviously and enormously: I’m an author, often an author of fiction. So I’m biased as a writer. And I’m here giving this talk tonight, under the auspices of the Reading Agency: a charity whose mission is to give everyone an equal chance in life by helping people become confident and enthusiastic readers. And it’s that change, and that act of reading that I’m here to talk about tonight. I was once in New York, and I listened to a talk about the building of private prisons – a huge growth industry in America. It’s not one to one: you can’t say that a literate society has no criminality. And I think some of those correlations, the simplest, come from something very simple. Fiction has two uses. It’s tosh.
Social constructionism Social constructionism, or the social construction of reality, is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world. It assumes that understanding, significance, and meaning are developed not separately within the individual, but in coordination with other human beings. The elements most important to the theory are (a) the assumption that human beings rationalize their experience by creating a model of the social world and how it functions and, (b) that language is the most essential system through which humans construct reality.[1] Definition[edit] Social constructs are the by-products of countless human choices, rather than laws resulting from human judgment. Ian Hacking noted in The Social Construction of What? Origins[edit] Social constructionist analysis[edit] "Social construction" may mean many things to many people. (1) X need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is. John R.
Au fait, c'est quoi, "l'effet Matilda"? 2% de noms de rue attribués à des femmes célèbres (nous en parlions dans notre revue de web pas plus tard qu’hier), à peine plus de 3% de personnages historiques féminins parmi ceux cités dans les manuels scolaires (ainsi que le révélait il y a quelques semaines une étude du Centre Hubertine Auclert), seulement 2 femmes au Panthéon français (dont l’une y repose en tant qu’épouse)… Mais pourquoi les femmes sont-elles si rares au contingent de ceux dont on reconnait l’apport essentiel aux progrès de l’humanité? Prisme sexiste (éventuellement inconscient) chez qui décide de rendre hommage ou pas à une personnalité en lui donnant un nom de rue ou en lui accordant un paragraphe dans un ouvrage de référence? Résultat de l’insuffisant accès des femmes à l’éducation jusqu’à des temps récents? Ces hypothèses s’explorent, mais pour cerner plus précisément la question, il faut aussi penser les conditions d’accès à la postérité des figures majeures de toute époque…. “Matthieu et l’ange”, Guido Reni
Fundamental Fysiks Group David Kaiser argues, in How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival (2011), that the group's meetings and papers helped to nurture the ideas in quantum physics that came to form the basis of quantum information science.[2] Two reviewers wrote that Kaiser may have exaggerated the group's influence on the future of physics research, though one of them, Silvan Schweber, wrote that some of the group's contributions are easy to identify, such as Clauser's experimental evidence for non-locality attracting a share of the Wolf Prize in 2010, and the publication of Capra's The Tao of Physics (1975) and Zukav's The Dancing Wu Li Masters (1979) attracting the interest of a wider audience.[3] Kaiser writes that the group were "very smart and very playful," discussing quantum mysticism and becoming local celebrities in the Bay Area's counterculture. Research[edit] Bell's theorem and no-cloning theorem[edit] Remote viewing[edit] See also[edit] Notes[edit] Books
What's Wrong With Our Culture Thought-provoking 5 minutes on the state of the world from the late, great Alan Watts, a man far ahead of his time. Created by The Omega Point Project. “Your world is an illusion. From the day you were born, you have been conditioned. Your schools taught you to be quiet, neutral and numb. You worked hard for the future with your reward always just around the next corner or just up the next step. You accepted it as natural for one to be wealthy whilst another is poor, or the absurd notion that we must pay back the debt of our own existence. We need to move beyond revolution and into the next stage of human evolution. We will take no power back as we shall empower ourselves and we shall say: We are the humans. - Anonymous Related Posts
Mind–body problem Different approaches toward resolving the mind–body problem. The mind–body problem in philosophy examines the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain. Each of these categories contain numerous variants. The two main forms of dualism are substance dualism, which holds that the mind is formed of a distinct type of substance not governed by the laws of physics, and property dualism, which holds that mental properties involving conscious experience are fundamental properties, alongside the fundamental properties identified by a completed physics. The three main forms of monism are physicalism, which holds that the mind consists of matter organized in a particular way; idealism, which holds that only thought truly exists and matter is merely an illusion; and neutral monism, which holds that both mind and matter are aspects of a distinct essence that is itself identical to neither of them. Philosophers David L. Plato[edit] A.